Unless the new Dowson / Golding party seeks to occupy a civic nationalist position, then it will have to compete with the BNP, National Front and the British Democratic Party of Andrew Brons / Arthur Kemp.

This week also brings the BNP Ideas Party Conference where it is expected that they will announce their formation of a new party as well.

Two in a fortnight.

They seem like buses - you wait for ages then two come at once.

One would have thought that logic would dictate that Brons & co would join the Dowson Cash Cow Party, or the Moo Nationalists as I like to call them, but it appears that personality conflicts within both groups means two new groups will form.

It may be that they have a cunning plan, where at the conference Brons will announce he plans to join Britain First.

That means that into a rather small and airless sack, a collection of egotistical, angry cats will be forced to occupy a very small space.

We all know that the only thing that would unite such a party would be their hate for Griffin, not any personal, ideological or political cohesion, hence within a few months it would crash and burn.

After Brons recent letter to the Tyndallite group celebrating JT's birthday, it appears that the Brons / Kemp party will seek to position itself on the old Far Right ground that the BNP used to be on before Griffin decided the BNP was a personality cult based around the Fuhrer Principle.

This will though put it in direct competiton with the National Front - and also in direct breach with the Equality Commission the moment that it announced as Brons is an elected member of the EU - and unless the new party constitution is not 'unlawful' as per the dictates of the Race Relations Gestapo led by Trevor 'Heinrich' Phillips, then it will be forced to change its constitution rather like the BNP.

This issue is academic for the NF though, as even though its constitution is unlawful it does not have any elected members and hence the Equality Commission have no interest in forcing it to obey the law.

This new Brons / Kemp party means that around 25 % of the BNP will leave the BNP and go to join up with it.

That means the BNP will be massively weakened as a result.

Not that Griffin cares of course, as the remaining 75 % of the BNP will still ensure he has enough of an income to keep him happy.

So these are the possible permutations ;

1) Dowson /Golding for a new party

2) Brons / Kemp form a new party

3) Brons / Golding / Kemp/ Dowson for a new party.

4) The BNP splits and a rump of activists leave to join Brons new party / Brons, Golding, Kemp, Dowson Party.

So in one week we will have gone from one Far Right party, the NF, to potentially three with the BNP split in two and left as the only ethno-nationalist party or the BNP faces two new ethno-nationalist parties on its turf.

What with the EDP under Butler ripping itself apart as the influence of his BNP clique begins to exert itself in the paty and alienate the civic nationalist liberal cringers in the English pseudo-Nationalist movement - then it appears that the EDP itself may be already starting to fall apart into factionalism with resignations almost every day.

About this time last year, when I was speaking to Clive Jefferson, who was ringing folks to urge them to renew their membership, about the Dowson-Rose affair (if that's the right word), he assured me that the whole affair had been sorted without any scandal attaching to anyone.

I said to Mr Jefferson that if the Party was prepared to put what he had said to me in writing, including email, I would renew membership.

He seemed satisfied with that but I have never received any such communication.

I could well accept that the Party could have and still does have, more pressing priorities but its failure to communicate in writing as requested was a disappointment.

That said, it is to be hoped that these various nationalist groups can at least get their respective acts together and, even if hating the very mention of each other's names, can agree tactically on a form of demarcation where they each pursue their own particular strategies without getting in each other's way.

"Teamwork is essential. It gives the enemy more targets to aim at than just you" - Murphy, from his Laws on Warfare

Until now, the BNP has been a kind of Aunt Sally for the largest parties, the MSM, the (in)E(in)HRC and every other 5th columinist who wants a piece of the action in subverting Britain and helping to establish a Jesuit/Marxist/Islamo-Nazi EU satellite.

Several viable nationalist groups will at least make the enemy's job harder, provided the groups can complement each other's efforts and not conflict with them.

All groups will, however, need a Nick Griffin counterpart. Love him or hate him - and it seems that a fair number are in the second group - he stands out as a leader.

That doesn't mean that he's loved and respected, as indicated above. It doesn't even mean that he's necessarily a good leader, although I think the Party's survival owes a lot to his leadership (discounting for now the various 'wheels within wheels' Ezekiel 1 conspiracy notions that he's a state agent etc. which are still, I think, in need of direct evidence to substantiate them).

It means that he's perceived as a leader, whom others are prepared to follow, or were, for a time.

It's noteworthy that Napoleon is supposed to have said in reference to his own perceived military genius that "In war men are nothing; it is the Man who is everything."

That does have application to today's crises in Britain - and the Old Dominions. See Part 2.

Harsh as it sounds, Napoleon's statement has a particular application to Griffin. It also had an application to men like Churchill, Montgomery, Bader and Gibson, for example, none of whom were universally loved and respected. According to one documentary I saw, Gibson's subordinates regarded him as "an arch-bastard" i.e. not the congenial, approachable character portrayed by the late Sir Richard Todd.

Many would say today, e.g. especially of Churchill, that they weren't necessarily even good leaders, Winston himself being thrown out in the July 1945 Khaki election.

"I want Churchill out and his whole ******' gang, I remember the thirties, marra...[the Tories] got us into this ******' war, didn't they?" said one Labour-supporting 14th Army veteran on the eve of the election (edited for language). He had served as a rifleman in the 9th Border from the Imphal Boxes to the Sittang Bend, names that should be familiar to today's Brits but all too often are not. See Quartered Safe Out Here by the late George MacDonald 'Flashman' Fraser, p 261.

However, for their time and place in history, they were perceived as leaders and stood out as such. Trust was placed in them by armies, nations, fighting formations and serving individuals. On the whole, that trust was vindicated by the results.

May 8th 1945, for example, was celebrated as VE Day, Victory in Europe Day, not VF Day, Victory for Fascism Day (that the Jesuit/Marxist/Common Purpose/Islamofascist/Neo-Babel Genesis 11 European Union is trying to bring about).

It is surely the height of arrogance and presumption to suppose that VE and later VJ Day were observed in honour of the wrong victors. I believe that would be the view of most if not all of our sadly dwindling band of the WW2 generation survivors, that "special generation" as HRH Prince Charles rightly called them (whatever else might be said of Charles) at the 60th VJ Day commemoration of August 15th 2005.

It is to be hoped therefore that the various British nationalist factions now emerging in these "perilous times" 2 Timothy 3:1 can all therefore manifest leaders who are perceived and followed as such.

If they can combine both perceived leadership and good personal qualities, like, for example, 'Uncle Bill' Slim, so much the better.

Above all, however, they must be perceived as leaders, whom others are willing to follow.

Funding needs to come from local branches and groups, it should not be raised centrally or in large amounts (i.e. selling out). Jim Dowson's way is the way to UKIP, or Veritas (Yes, another orange looking man at the head of that one ;-)...

It seems that there already is a British Democratic Party formed by Alex Reece (http://sites.google.com/site/britishdemocraticpartygbbo00/) but there is no sign of Andrew Brons forming one with Arthur Kemp.

A. That it is impossible for the old strategy of a broad church nationalist "front" to be reconstructed.

B. That the implicit strategy of that “front” concept, that it takes control of the state through the democratic process, is ludicrous.

Given these indisputable facts it is obvious that the radical right must adopt completely new organisational and strategic model. In fact it already effectively has with 90% of active nationalists now operating outside of formal conventional political parties. The problem is that the intellectual leadership and managerial leadership of the radical right have not accepted these facts or developed an alternative. Mainly because the obvious decentralised alternative model offers little opportunity for them to make a living from it.

It’s unbelievable that at a time when we are witnessing the fruits of Open Source and decentralised organisational models unleashing 9 different types of hell for the global establishments we are still talking about cobbling together a cargo cult version of an 18th century political vehicle.

I believe that barrister Adrian Davies formed a British Democratic party several weeks ago with the idea of linking up with Brons etc.Green Arrow and his associate Corsham Crusader claim to have proof that the BNP Ideas leaders approached Britain First with a view to joining it.The fact that Brons and Kemp routinely ignore correspondence from potential members does not bode well for the future of their party as supporters resent being ignored and will turn to another party.